"If all of mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1869

If you are not familiar with PETA, they are a group of activists that champion "animal rights." At least that is what they say. PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is a group of people that use misinformation, threats, and shock-tactics to force people to do what they want.

Never, ever let a fur-wearer pass by without voicing your disapproval. If you know someone who still wears fur, show him or her this article. He or she may not realize that no federal law protects animals on fur farms or that typical killing methods include electrocution, poisoning, neck-breaking, and gassing.

This is pretty innocuous. What this blurb advocates is voicing your opinion, hopefully in a polite manner, without being overbearing. Congratulations PETA, I applaud you for this advice.

In order not to detract from our campaign, it is imperative that all correspondence be polite and dignified.
[Found at the bottom of an alert.]

Again, a very nice, dignified, and polite way of expressing their opinions.

Both of these represent what PETA would like you to believe that their methods are. However, the ways that they actually operate are very different. They use double-standards, shock value, misinformation, terror, and assault to intimidate people into believing/behaving the way that they want them to.

In each instance, PETA has urged that members write to the judges, mayors, and law enforcement officials in those areas asking that the maximum sentence be imposed for the offender. This is all fine and good. But, what about when it's PETA's members who are committing the crimes?

Usually, I don't equate people with terrorists. However, I think that some of the tactics used by PETA would classify as that. Terrorism is defined as:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

What is the root of terrorism? Terror. The intent is to make the recipient scared of something or someone. What would you do if someone was scaring your children? If they were being shown mutilated bodies and other horrific pictures? Wouldn't you be upset? Wouldn't it upset your kids? Possibly even make them scared or terrified? Couldn't it possibly even scar them for life? This is what PETA is doing with their new ad campaign that targets people wearing furs when they go to the theater. They are distributing comic books to children that depict horrible acts being committed to animals and they blame the children's parents for it. PETA's new comic book. This is a despicable act by a group of deranged people. What concerns me is that in PETA's overwhelming concern for animals, they seem to be inflicting harm on humans, both physical and psychological.

Another tactic seems to be "Shock Value". PETA has run several ads in Canada that exploited the brutal killings of 15 women in British Columbia. An article about the ad campaign and reactions to it can be found here. Even a member of the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres called it (the ad) "grotesque and exploitative in the extreme." Let me be clear on this. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has said that it is ok to use the fact that 15 human women who were killed on a pig farm to further their own agenda. ETHICAL treatment! Where are the ethics? Where are the ethics in an organization that routinely exposes people, including children, to softcorepornads. Am I being to harsh? Maybe. Yes, my choice of words is meant to convey certain meanings and to place their ads in a certain context. You decide what they are.

Misinformation. This is one of the best used tactics by PETA. They claim that they are "dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals." Also, "PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the fur trade, and in the entertainment industry." They also advocate a vegetarian diet. Mostly this is based on the Least Harm Principle. This is discussed in depth in the book The Case for Animal Rights. Hmm, let's think about this for a minute. Studies have shown that the harvesting of fields for grains such as wheat kills off a significant portion of the native animal population. This article details why a vegan diet causes more harm than an omnivorous one. Another article to read about the impacts of vegetarian diets is "The Uneasy Conscience of the Animal rights Movement". Yet another article documenting the affects of harvesting on indigenous animal life is "OSU Scientist Questions the Moral Basis of a Vegan Diet". In giving credit where credit is due, I was first alerted to this issue by Maddox at The Best Page in the Universe, particularly his page Guiltless Grill? Is there another kind?. I also provided the links to pages that he had already linked to.

I could write more about PETA and why I dislike their methods and why I think that their resources would be put to better use if they were the People for the Ethical Treatment of Humans, but I think that you can discern for yourself what they do. Also, if you want to read more of their propaganda check out their Frequently Asked Questions page. I particularly like the interpretation if the Bible in response to the "dominion over animals" question. Please do not interpret this post to mean that I support being cruel to animals. I don't support PETA, their tactics, or some of their goals. In this case, I don't think that the ends justify the means. I do support the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

*Note: Forthcoming will be a similar article on the tactics used by the N.R.A. and maybe even some discussion on the similarity between these two groups.